I do not do anything with aviation so that is why I was not familiar with
Microsoft's flight simulator.
I believe the Microsoft breakup is relevant to this board. How is a
Microsoft monopoly any more tolerable in this day and age than was a
GN+NP+CB&Q merger at the turn of the Century. While that latter did
ultimately occur and ultimately absorbed the SLSF and AT&SF, it was at a
time when rail was no longer the monopoly it had been, but now was in
competition with other transportation modes.
sjl
Dan Almosnino wrote:
>
> My appology - this was not meant to get to the list but to SJL alone as
> you can see from the first line below.
> It is not meant to stir another useless debate unrelated to BRHS or Q
> issues.
>
> Dan
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dan Almosnino
> Sent: Monday, September 11, 2000 1:22 PM
> To: BRHSlist@egroups.com
> Subject: RE: [BRHSlist] Microsoft Train Simulator
>
> I am taking this off the list because it has nothing to do with BRHS or
> the Q.
>
> It seems that some of your information is outdated (if you heard about
> the MS Flight simulator just now).
> Quality is always a big concern and thaty includes Microsoft products.
> Have you tried Windows 2000? I believe it is a great stride in operating
> system quality and reliability and no, you don't need to reboot it
> often. Like many other complex systems and products, software gets
> better with time and consumer's feedback.
> As for Java, your remarks were particularly unfair and one sided.
> Microsoft found Java to be sub-standard and it did not provided all the
> features and quality it needed. Sun itself disagrees with the
> international Java standard and fears losing control over Java
> liscencing. Why would you believe and say that anything that replaces
> Java would be of inferior quality? Have you seen it yet?
> You keep throwing assumptions and speculations without base in facts
> (this is true for your Microsoft breakup expectations as well because
> the the whole thing is still under appeal). There is nothing wrong in
> setting your own standards if these exceed existing ones and provide
> better service and value to the customer.
>
> Dan
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stephen J. Levine [mailto:sjl@p...]
> Sent: Monday, September 11, 2000 12:45 PM
> To: BRHSlist@egroups.com
> Subject: Re: [BRHSlist] Microsoft Train Simulator
>
> I did hear about the Microsoft's flight simulator this weekend from a
> member
> of our rail passenger advocacy organization who works for the FAA.
>
> Normally I stick on this list to rail issues, particularly the Q.
> However,
> we sometimes have to look at a bigger picture, and being involved in
> information systems, I am not bashing Microsoft just because I like
> bashing
> things. I really do not.
>
> However, having been involved in mission critical and life-critical
> computer
> systems for over 10 years now, I have a really genuine concern about the
> quality of microsoft products and the microsoft monopoly. In my
> business,
> I am used to systems that do not have to be rebooted except when there
> are
> hardware failures.
>
> I also am really concerned that Microsoft is refusing to go along with
> the
> international Java standard but is going in their own direction. They
> feel
> that they have the power to set their own standards (and they do) and
> make
> everyone else go along, regardless of whether such standards represent a
> deterioration of quality or not.
>
> It may however be that, with the breakup of Microsoft, their monopoly
> may
> not be such a problem. It is interesting that the Microsoft case may be
> to
> the early 21st Century what the Northern Securities Case (GN+NP+CB&Q)
> was to
> the early 20th Century.
>
> sjl
>
> Dan Almosnino wrote:
>
> >
> > If the MS train simulator will have the quality of MS Flight or Combat
> > Flight Simulators, that won't be disappointing at all.
> > Microsoft is doing many other games and simulators so the Train
> > Simulator should not be a surprize. This never prevented other
> companies
> > to develop similar, competitive products (some better, some worse).
> > Unlike flight simulators, there aren't many train simulators around so
> > any addition should be welcomed.
> >
> > It is unfortunate that SJL's mail below uses the forum for typical bad
> > mouthing purposes instead of evaluating the merits of a new train
> > simulator (which is not out yet, not even in Beta version).
> >
> > Dan
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Stephen J. Levine [mailto:sjl@p...]
> > Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2000 1:16 PM
> > To: BRHSlist@egroups.com
> > Subject: Re: [BRHSlist] Microsoft Train Simulator
> >
> > What is Microsoft doing in the train simulator business? Is Bill
> Gates
> > also
> > a train buff?
> >
> > Is this another example of Microsoft's monopolistic urges?
> >
> > The reason why the question comes up is that Microsoft, already having
> > problems with software meeting open system standards, has recently
> > announced
> > that they are going to drop Java, which is an open system standard,
> and
> > develop their own proprietary language in its stead. What makes this
> > especially bad is that Microsoft has a track record of developing less
> > robust systems that end up supplanting more robust ones.
> >
> > sjl
> >
> > Ed DeRouin wrote:
> >
> > > hold-on@s... wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Ed
> > > > Sounds too much like work to Me
> > > > SJH
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > SJH
> > >
> > > Did I mention that they paid cash for my opinion?
> > >
> > > EMD
> > >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
|